That's an interesting way of framing the point of existential inauthenticity, to speak of the irony that those who are most fit to lead are the ones who resist concentrating power in their hands, because they selflessly want to empower others, whereas those who are quick to lead are the least deserving and the most liable to be corrupted.
I have an article coming out within the next couple of weeks about a similar irony or paradox, but that deals with happiness rather than power. Who deserves to be happy? Are those who are happiest the least deserving, while those who are burdened by knowledge the most deserving and the most wretched?
This is essentially the problem of evil, which has led to our many fantastical religions that attempt to explain away the palpable irony and absurdity of an unfair, indifferent, topsy-turvy world. This is why the Jesus of the Gospels says that in the ideal world (God's kingdom), the last will be first and the first will be last.